M/S.ALLIANZ CORNHILL INFORMATION SERVICES P. LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. JTCIT, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm Assessment Year : 2010-11

disallowance of deduction u/s. 10B was upheld. Regarding alternate claim of deduction u/s. 10A, the DRP confirmed the findings of the Assessing Officer. 13.3 Against this, the assessee is in appeal before us. The Ld. AR submitted that the DRP and the A.O. was bound to examine and grant the alternative claim u/s. 10A of the Act to the assessee

THE JT CIT, TRIVANDRUM vs. ALLIANZ CORNHILL INFORMATION SERVICES P. LTD, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm Assessment Year : 2010-11

disallowance of deduction u/s. 10B was upheld. Regarding alternate claim of deduction u/s. 10A, the DRP confirmed the findings of the Assessing Officer. 13.3 Against this, the assessee is in appeal before us. The Ld. AR submitted that the DRP and the A.O. was bound to examine and grant the alternative claim u/s. 10A of the Act to the assessee

MANJILAS AGRO FOOD PVT.LTD.,THRISSUR vs. THE ITO,WARD-1(2),, THRISSUR

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S.

section (9). 24. Above being the position, the irresistable conclusion is that the assessee had disclosed all material facts fully and truly. That being the position, conclusions of the learned Single Judge cannot be faulted. Writ appeal being without any merit is dismissed.” 7. We also notice that the assessee has made specific request with respect to the reasons

MANJILAS AGRO FOODS PVT. LTD,THRISSUR vs. THACIT,CIRCLE-1(1 ), THRISSUR

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S.

section (9). 24. Above being the position, the irresistable conclusion is that the assessee had disclosed all material facts fully and truly. That being the position, conclusions of the learned Single Judge cannot be faulted. Writ appeal being without any merit is dismissed.” 7. We also notice that the assessee has made specific request with respect to the reasons

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), THRRISSUR vs. MANJILAS AGRO FOODS PVT. LTD., THRISSUR

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S.

section (9). 24. Above being the position, the irresistable conclusion is that the assessee had disclosed all material facts fully and truly. That being the position, conclusions of the learned Single Judge cannot be faulted. Writ appeal being without any merit is dismissed.” 7. We also notice that the assessee has made specific request with respect to the reasons

THE KERALA MINERALS AND METALS LTD.,KOLLAM vs. THE DICT, KOLLAM

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dasthe Kerala Minerals & Metals Ltd. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Sankaramangalam Circle - 1, Kollam Chavara, Kollam 691001 Vs. [Pan:Aaact8118R] (Appellant) (Respondent)

156 and the provisions of this Act shall apply accordingly. (4) The provisions of this section shall apply in respect of assessments for the assessment year commencing on the 1st day of April, 1989, and subsequent assessment years. 5.2 It is apparent that the Legislature did not intend the issue of interest on refund to be subject to litigation

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1 AND TPS, KANNUR vs. KANNUR BUILDING MATERIALS CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED, PAPPINISSERY, KANNUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue ITA No

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm Assessment Year: 2013-14 The Income Tax Officer, Ward 1 & Tps .......... Appellant Aayakar Bhavban, Chovva P.O., Kannur 670006 Vs. Kannur Building Materials Co-Op. Society Ltd .......... Respondent No. C 1741, Pappinissery P.O., Kannur 670561 [Pan: Aaaak7151K]

disallowance u/s.40(a)(ia) for an amount of Rs. 1,58,390/- for which TDS provisions were applicable. 5.10 In ground no. 6, the appellant has raised the plea that the assessment order is barred by limitation of time u/s 153 in as much as the order and demand notice u/s 156 was served on the assessee only

SREE ANJANEYA MEDICAL TRUST,KOZHIKODE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 2 (1), KOZHIKODE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Sree Anjaneya Medical Trust Acit, Circle - 2 17/501X-1, Kanchas Building Aayakar Bhavan Opp. Indoor Stadium Mananachira Vs. Rajaji Road, New Bus Stand Kozhikode 673001 Kozhikode 673004 [Pan: Aahts3844B] (Appellant) (Respondent)

disallowed the exemption claimed by the assessee and made an addition of Rs. 50 Lakh to the total income of the assessee. 5. On appeal by the assessee, the learned CIT(A) also confirmed the addition made by the AO. 6. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before

ABDUL AZEEZ POOLAKKODAN,KOTTAKKAL vs. ITO WARD 1, TIRUR

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Anil Kumar Dugarabdul Azeez Poolakkodan Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 Poolakkodan House Tharif Bazar, Opp. Town Hall Randathani P.O. Vs. Tirur 676101 Malappuram 676510 [Pan: Acppa2490P] (Appellant) (Respondent)

disallowing the assessee’s claim for exemption of interest on enhanced compensation from tax, which stand brought on the statute by Finance (No.2) Act, 2009, read as: 56. Income from other sources.— (1) Income of every kind which is not to be excluded from the total income under this Act shall be chargeable to income-tax under the head “Income

SMT.K.B.SONY,COCHIN vs. THE DCIT, COCHIN

In the result, i) The appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 36 deals with other deduction in respect of premium paid, interest etc. 3.7 In the present case, there is no allegation by the Assessing Officer that the sassessee has not incurred any expenditure. The only allegation is that the assessee has not rendered any services to M/s. Rosy Blue (India) Pvt. Ltd. In our opinion when there

V GUARD INDUSTRIES LIMITED,VENNALA vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, KOCHI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Sandeep Gosainv-Guard Industries Ltd. Principal Cit-1, 42/962, Vennala High School C R Building, I S Press Road, Vs. Road, Vennala, Kochi 682018 Ernakulam 682028 [Pan: Aaacv5492Q] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Anil D. Nair, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Prashant V.K., Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 01.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 20.03.2023 O R D E R Per: Bench This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Challenging The Revision Of It’S Assessment Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ Hereinafter) Dated 28/12/2018 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2016-17 By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-1, Kochi (‘Pr. Cit’ For Short) Vide Order U/S. 263 Dated 22/03/2021. 2. The Appeal, Filed On 08/03/2022, Though Delayed By 256 Days, Was Admitted In View Of The Blanket Condonation By The Apex Court In Suo Motu Wp(C) No.3/2020, Dated 10/01/2022, Excluding The Period From 15/3/2020 To 28/02/2022 In Reckoning The Delay In Computing Limitation Under Law & The Hearing Accordingly Proceeded With. The Assessee Is A Company Manufacturing Electrical Cables, Pumps, Solar Water Heaters, Etc. & Trading In Electrical & Electronic Goods. Revision Of It’S Impugned Assessment Is On Several Issues On Which The Revisionary Authority Found An Absence Or Lack Of Enquiry By The Assessing Officer

Section 115JB has not been considered by the AO, which is a mistake prejudicial to the interest of revenue.’ That is, non-consideration of certain claims of expenditure for computation of book-profit. The assessee, in reply, admits to the said deficiency, though claims that it would be of no consequence as the tax liability u/s. 115JB, even after considering

M/S.BODYGEAR INTERNATIONAL P. LTD,ERNAKULAM vs. THE DCIT, KOCHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Soundararajan K

disallowing the claim for deduction u/s.10B of the Act by holding that filing revised return does not amount to substitution of the original return filed u/s.139(1) of the Act, and therefore, does not constitute a sufficient compliance, and accordingly dismissed the appeal placing reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of PCIT

ELANTHOOR SERVICE CO OPER BANK LIMITED,ELANTHOOR vs. ITO, WARD 2 , THIRUVALLA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2016-17

156/-received cannot be segregated and hence the appellant's taxable income is NIL, legally. G. The Authorities below have utterly failed to compute the correct total income of the appellant, in the manner prescribed and the appellate Commissioner ought to have negated the erroneous computation of total income taken by the Assessing Officer. H. It is the settled

THE NEHRU MEMORIAL EDUCATION SOCIETY,KANHANGAD vs. ITO EXEMPTIONS, KANNUR

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Dr. S. Seethalakshmithe Nehru Memorial The Income Tax Officer Education Society (Exemptions), Kannur Lakshmi Nivas Vs. Kanhangad - 671315 Kasaragod [Pan:Aabtt0633M] (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 2(24)(iia) of the Act, defining income, makes no exception for a voluntary contribution received toward corpus, so that it is income by definition, though exempt u/s. 11(1)(d)). It is for this reason that capital expenditure is equally an application of income, entitling exemption u/s. 11(1) on income derived from property held under trust (Tiruppani

VALLAPUZHA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK,CHERUPULASSERY vs. ITO, WARD-3, PALAKKAD, PALAKKAD

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

156/- On further verification of the loan documents of the Bank, it is seen that the major portion of the agricultural loans are agricultural mortgage loan advanced by the mortgage of gold ornaments and there is no mechanism to ensure that whether the amounts has been actually utilized for agricultural purpose." 3. Suffice to say that it is clear from

VALLAPUZHA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK,CHERUPULASSERY vs. ITO,WARD-3, PALAKKAD

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

156/- On further verification of the loan documents of the Bank, it is seen that the major portion of the agricultural loans are agricultural mortgage loan advanced by the mortgage of gold ornaments and there is no mechanism to ensure that whether the amounts has been actually utilized for agricultural purpose." 3. Suffice to say that it is clear from

VALLAPUZHA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK,PALAKKAD vs. ITO, WARD-3, PALAKKAD

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

156/- On further verification of the loan documents of the Bank, it is seen that the major portion of the agricultural loans are agricultural mortgage loan advanced by the mortgage of gold ornaments and there is no mechanism to ensure that whether the amounts has been actually utilized for agricultural purpose." 3. Suffice to say that it is clear from

THE ITO, WD-2, THODUPUZHA, THODUPUZHA vs. SRI.E.J.SONY, KOTHAMANGALAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeals

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

disallowed 3,200 8,88,689 Business Loss (-) (-)14,03,543 II. Long Term Capital Gain: Sale consideration of 88.740 cents of land 6,50,00,000 Less:Indexed cost of acquisition Cost as on 1.4.81 70,39,220 7039220 x 351/100 247,07,662 Add: Expenses on sale 5,000 247,12,662 Long term capital gain

SRI.ESSA ISMAIL SAIT,ERNAKULAM vs. THE ACIT,CIR-2(1),, ERNAKULAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeals

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

disallowed 3,200 8,88,689 Business Loss (-) (-)14,03,543 II. Long Term Capital Gain: Sale consideration of 88.740 cents of land 6,50,00,000 Less:Indexed cost of acquisition Cost as on 1.4.81 70,39,220 7039220 x 351/100 247,07,662 Add: Expenses on sale 5,000 247,12,662 Long term capital gain